What do people actually expect DLA to be spent on??

[Whoknowshey]

This comes off a thread I read recently where a poster was being criticised for spending DLA on a fridge .

Im curious as to what people think DLA / PIP should be spent on ? Due to various circumstances I am aware of what people spend it on and I also have a child in receipt PIP so I know how theirs gets spent . Some differs to how my child’s is spent. Some I agree with , some I don’t but the fact is it’s for the individuals needs and that varies massively. Especially with non physical disabilities it would be hard to spend it on things directly related to their needs but there are many ways in which it affects their lives that it can help with .

Some I have came across;

• theme park passes- the child cannot do what others can , going out with friends etc . The passes give the opportunity to enjoy childhood safely.
• Toys/ things for hyperfocuses - a hyper focus is a form of regulation . To some it may look like an obsession with a character but it’s actually a way for the individual to regulate.
• Towards the family income because parents cannot work.
• Furniture - lots can get destroyed due to the individuals issues.
• Save it towards the child’s future . The child may not ever be able to get a job and adult social care is appalling .

I think all those things are justified . But I have seen comments against that.

My child has PIP as a young adult. They have a part of the money as theirs to do with what they wish ( which can be wasted hence why they do not have it all and I am their appointee - but also they have no way of having extra money as cannot work nor claim any benefits , have to stay in education to hold on to that EHCP and to help with their life skills etc ) A part goes into the house because I care for them financially as though they are a child - yet usually parents do not have to do this with an adult child. They know exactly what they are paying for with this - rent, shopping etc, social groups. It doesn’t really touch what I spend on them as the majority actually goes on a mobility car , because they have to be taken to most places . This way they are paying bills etc as they see it - an itemised of what they pay - because I know if they go in to supported living it will be eaten up by that and I don’t want them to get used to just having all that money, I think the way I do it is justified as it is for their needs ( food aversions so more expensive shop , get through clothes very quickly due to sensory issues , hyper focuses , social groups specific to their needs ) .

A bit fed up of seeing people attacked because someone doesn’t deem what they spend as “ for their needs “ yet those needs are so vast .

Interested on thoughts.

Dla is not based on parents income
2 parents can work and still claim dla is their child is in need if it and pay towards horseriding.

Again as a taxpayer who is entitled to nothing I do not like my taxes taking other people's children to theme parks for example. A theme park is a treat for any family, and many families cannot afford it.

As a taxpayer who is entitled to nothing it's a shame I cannot have a say in where my taxes are spent. For other people's kids to have a family theme park pass for example is taking the piss.

Because RDA sessions are not about horse riding. The horse is a vehicle for therapy which the child may not tolerate or be able to engage with. Tell a child that you'll expect them to stretch their hips which causes pain, and they are going to be upset. Put them on a horse, which stretches their hips, and their focus is the horse. A single session of horse riding can provide physio, occupational therapy, emotional regulation and sensory integration. Individually, those sessions would be more expensive and less effective.

RDA stables (or independent equivalents) cost more than normal lessons because they have a higher support element, and they leave gaps between clients so that the stables is a peaceful environment and they can be patient when a client needs more time to prepare for their session.

You do realise that some of these children will not be able to access the activities that many children can, and something like a fast ride will give immense sensory joy.

Imagine that you can’t walk, or run- you’ll never drive, or ride a bike (unless your parents can afford to buy a specially adapted one, at huge cost). Then try to imagine what a theme park ride which can accommodate you (not all can) would feel like.

My son is non verbal and still in nappies at 12, he will never work. I will care for him for life.

Anyone who thinks I give a fuck about a measly £110 a week high rate dla for my son is having an absolute laugh.
I would cut off my own arm and give my house away if someone said they could make him 'neurotypical' and give him the life I thought he would have.

I will spend my sons DLA on whatever I want that makes him happy, including taking him on holiday... and yes I took him to disneyland paris in the school holidays with it.

I'm not disputing that horse riding lessons are lovely and have health benefits. I'm questioning whether it should be within the remit of the state to provide this from the tax take, particularly at a time where people are struggling with costs of basics for their own kids

So presumably you object to families using their child benefit, tax credits and universal credit for such things as well then?

Parents who go out to work don’t fund it for me, I work, I pay considerably more in tax than I receive in DLA. My DD has recently started riding lessons, paid for by me out of my income, a tiny percentage of which is her DLA.

She can’t access other community based hobbies, we’ve tried just about everything. They can’t teach her safely or she’s ostracised by the other kids because she’s a bit different or not as good at the activity. So riding is one thing she can do, she enjoys, and is good at. Should I say she can’t do it because the State contributes less than 10% of our monthly income.

Theres certainly a moral argument around disability, but as I’ve outlined before, this isn’t it.

It’s about giving disadvantaged children experiences that they couldn’t access otherwise. No, you don’t get a say in how your taxes are spent. Fortunately, part of living in a civilised society is ensuring that everyone has a chance to enjoy things now and again.

Fancy resenting a disabled child a ride on a rollercoaster. Couldn’t be me tbh.

Don't worry, since the theme parks changed their ride access schemes to be 'fair to normal users', DD1 can't cope with them anyway. They used to have a ride access pass which allowed disabled people to go to the exit gate, but people moaned. So they changed it to allow 10 rides to be accessed, because that's the average amount a 'normal' person could access if they queued. I mean, ok, fair enough. But then people still moaned. Now, you get a time to return, so that you wait the same amount of time that a 'normal' person would, but you're free to wander around while you wait. Well, DD1 doesn't have the stamina for a day at a theme park, even in her wheelchair. She could cope with turning up, using her 10 rides and leaving. She can't cope with a 45 minute wait between rides, so she can't go anymore. But hey, it's 'fair', right?

When did that start? I went to chessington, legoland and thorpe park in the last year and didnt have a limit on the rides.

Disneyland paris has a fab ride access system too, I cant fault it.

People who don't claim have more options available to them. Their kids can do pretty much every park, cheap day out, playing with friends etc going.

Why are people saying disabled kids should have nothing at all?

This thread sucks monkeys balls. Shame on some of you.

Is he allowed physiotherapy, occupational therapy and cbt at the tax payer expense?

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It seems that you are somehow implying that the theme park ride somehow makes up for the fact that someone will never be able walk, run or ride a bike. I don't think you can link these things in the way you are trying to.

It's like saying a disabled person should have expensive holidays funded by the taxpayer because their life is generally harder. Lots of people have hard lives for a whole host of reasons and we can't expect to use taxpayer money to compensate for this by paying for nice things and experiences that don't have a great deal to do with the initial hardship.

Is it also taking the piss for your child to be able to access education, have a full time school place with lessons they can access. Is it also taking the piss for your child to be able to access literally every park, museum, community based activity without distress or inhibition? Is it also taking the piss that your child can go to any club or group they wish.

The pisstake, if there is one, is that society still does not accommodate difference, so disabled children are excluded from education, hobbies, groups and communities unless they attend something specifically for kids with additional needs. That there are literally no childcare options for kids over 12 who need it, so parents have few realistic working options available to them. It’s a bloody pisstake that people presume to decide what others can or can’t spend their money on.

Imagine thinking you have no say in how your taxes are spent? Couldn't be me tbh.

There are a hell of a lot of assumptions built into your post. The assumption that all children that claim DLA can't access the things you list such as parks or that children living in poverty can always access them is just plain wrong.

It is also bizarre to suggest that people are against disabled kids having anything at all because they don't support tax payers money being spent on expensive horse riding or theme parks. I'm sure in a tiny minority of cases there are the only things a child can access but this isn't all families. There are a few families I follow on YouTube that are open that they claim DLA and they are at theme parks a lot. They have specific channels dedicated to it. Their children could absolutely access a park or play with friends but prefer theme parks for obvious reasons. Before you suggest it, no I'm not making assumptions about the children's capabilities, it is blatantly obvious to anyone watching the videos that the theme park visit are done out of preference rather than necessity.

He should be as essential healthcare under the NHS, but actually getting that provision is like climbing Everest in flip flops.

For Chessington, Legoland, and Thorpe, you now need a Nimbus card, have to give 7 days' notice when booking, and they have a cap on Ride Access Pass users each day. So you literally can't book if a certain number of RAP holders have booked.

Silly argument.

Child benefit is for the benefit of the child. No child is existing off less than £100 a month.

DLA and PIP are supposed to be for the ADDITIONAL costs associated with having a disability. Not for the same things that all children need and/or want, but often don't get because their parents can't afford them, or for ordinary differences between children.

If you're getting £350 a month and think that's justified because you spent £10 extra on socks without seams and another £10 on a fidget toy, that's a problem.

If your child has severe anxiety and won't go to school and the LA just throws some money at you and says that at least you won't notice the rise in energy bills from having a teen at home all day, instead of actually helping the child, that's a problem.

It is virtually impossible to operate a disability access scheme fairly in a theme park. Again, there are YouTube channels where the children have Autism (would have almost definitely be classified as Aspergers previously) and they qualify for DAS. They race between rides barely taking a breath between them all and complete at least quadruple the amount an ordinary family would in a full day at the park. They would repeatedly ride their favourite (very popular) rides without queuing at all whilst others people in the queue were waiting in excess of 90 minutes.

Before anyone jumps on me and tells me that these kids probably couldn't queue, this family have documented their children queuing at other places where DAS doesn't exist without too many problems.

Of course these children are totally different to your daughter but I can't help but think the DAS was never intended to be used like this as it's not equal access but priority access. This obviously makes it more attractive to people so then you have more and more people trying to qualify which makes the whole thing unsustainable. This is why Disney had to make massive changes in America as the problem had become so large that disabled people were having to queue a long time and this was impacting the standard queue too much.

But why should tax payers fund other people's children? No one needs a theme park pass so why should my tax fund child benefit for someone to have a fun day out when I can't afford a nice day out myself? Doesn't look so different to me to some of the arguments in here tbh.

That's why I was fine with the concept of 10 rides. Use them all in sequence and leave within an hour, or use them just for the longest queues and not for the 10 minutes queue, or do 5 rides, have some lunch, then another 5... That's all fine. But telling people who can't queue that they can queue virtually really doesn't show understanding of the reason that queueing is hard for some people.

I'd also think it was reasonable to have a system of 'right, you've used that ride, you can't come back to it for a while'.

Everyone gets CB. Some people have to pay it back in tax, but everyone gets it. It's a universal benefit paid because we generally consider that we want people to have children and we want those children to grow up not in poverty so they can contribute to society as adults.

If my taxes are going towards DLA and that's because some of those children NEED therapy or a special wheelchair in order to have opportunities that non-disabled children have then that is absolutely what a civilised society should be doing.

It's when it's being handed out arbitrarily to children who cost the exact same as any other child that people object- and don't say that doesn't happen because we've all seen it happen and know people who do it.